On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 09:58 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I see what you're doing with the indirection here (attempting to
> empower R1728 at power 3), but you haven't convinced me yet. The
> indirection doesn't remove the impossible nature of the task.
> Take a close look at R2140:
> No entity with power below the power of this rule can...
> (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with
> power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of
> an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
> operation.
> I would say that "the ability of R1728 to amend R2141" is a substantive
> aspect of the power-3 R1728, in that it is certainly an aspect of its
> operation; hence that ability (or lack thereof) can't be modified by
> the power-1 R2238.
>
> I like a good ladder scam, so what's the logic in favor?
The logic in favour is the CAN in the first sentence of rule 1728:
{{{
A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a
dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the
following are true:
}}}
That's why we made it a dependent action with Support, rather than a
straight-out direct action. Because that CAN's in a power-3 rule, it
means that dependent actions happen at power 3.
(Hmm... maybe we should give Warrigal the Cassandra title too. Although
e didn't notice me powering up dependent actions to 3 so that worked, e
did notice the ladder some time later and tried to fix it.)
--
ais523
